yeah.

diane watson (ca-33)

i always get maxine waters’ and diane watson’ names mixed up. i like ‘em both.

thanks for the note.

It is a standard move the goalposts GOP maneuver, like Gonzales saying that the right of habeus corpus does not apply to everyone, not even all US citizens. They get on TV and just make shit up. It is classic Bullshit as defined by “On Bullshit.”

To bullshit is to make something up out of whole cloth because it fits your narrative. The person doing the bullshitting does not care if it is presently false or will one day prove to be false (if you are talking about a theory as opposed to a fact). Your end game is just to trick the other side into thinking that you know what you are talking about long enough for you to get out of the room. That is why it is so important for a GOP congressman or senator to ensure that the witness is not under oath so that gives them the opportunity to later say, oops, I misspoke, my bad.

Leahy is right. Get them on record, in the open, under oath.

Also from the post:

But there were three, in particular, that stick out in my mind: the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe, the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame,” and the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger. The public record doesn’t support any of those assertions–yet Toensing offered those as “facts” “she knew.” It doesn’t reflect well, on Toensing, that in the same appearance where she spouted a number of “facts” “she knew” about the IIPA, she also contradicted the public record on a number of issues she claims “to know.”

Kidding? As a general question, I would be delighted to get your thinking on the likelihood of a perjury charge – how often does Congress invite in an expert witness for their opinion and then hit them for perjury when they offer it? Once a week, once a year, uhh, never? Just curious as to how you think that will develop.

As to the three points you noted, I agree – waiting for the transcript is a great idea. But here we go:

1. “the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe”

Lock her up! Obviously, one memo can’t “prove” anything – how dare she suggest it. Even supported by Grenier’s testimony and point 7 of the Libby indictment, it is not “proof” – outrageous.

[FWIW, here is point 7:

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

]

2. “the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame”

Huh? Do you want to argue that Grenier’s memory, which only came back to him in 2005, is false, and hence her recitation of it is false? You and Libby, together at last.

Or is it your theme that Grenier mentioned “Valerie Wilson”, or “Joe Wilson’s wife”, not “Valerie Plame”? Oh, boy, that sort of mistake is monumental. Not.

However, I would welcome a perjury charge on that point – after we all fall down laughing, the survivors can re-examine Ari Fleischer’s testimony – his claim that Libby used that name was actually relevant.

3. “the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger”

Nick Kristof, June 13 2003, second sentence, source later revealed to be Joe Wilson:

That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Or we could cite Grossman’s trial testimony, IIRC – that was not a public comment by Joe, but maybe he said the same thing to one of Ms. Toensing’s contacts.

Or, lock her up! Do we all agree Gitmo is too good for her? This sort of dissent can not be tolerated.

Tom,

You need to take Victoria Toensing at her word. She did not attribute proof to Grenier. She attributed it to the INR memo (and probably was thinking of the SSCI report which misquotes the INR memo). She clearly said Grenier’s testimony said he told Libby “Valerie Plame.” It didn’t. And Toensing said Joe, not Kristof, said OVP sent him. Now, the “at the behest” language here is actually language Dick CHeney has used (when he told Libby that Plame was CPD), so you can’t really be sure the second source on this story didn’t give it to him. But one thing is clear, in Wilson’s op-ed, he does not say “The Vice President sent him.”

Now you may be able to point to different evidence (as I can, with the question of deliberate and covert). But Toensing asserted three things and NAMED HER EVIDENCE. And her evidence does not support her claims. Your providing other evidence that might (in a stretch) support those claims does not negate the fact that she made claims that the evidence does not support.

And, Tom? When you start saying, “maybe Wilson said it to one of Libby’s contacts,” you’re not actually strengthening Toensing’s case. You’re simply emphasizing the point that no known evidence shows Wilson saying such a thing. Which is what Toensing claimed it did.

From the post:

Because really, even [Ms. Toensing] doesn’t have a good response to the deliberate outing of a CIA officer.

“Outing” implies awareness that she had classified status – can you review the trial evidence suggesting that Libby, Rove, Armitage, or Fleischer had such awareness?

Was it the testimony of Bob Grenier, Craig Schmall, or who?

It was pretty clear at the hearing yesterday that none of the Democrats on the panel could actually rebut Rep. Davis when he made that point, so your assistance on this would also help them in their next go-around as well.

Here, for example, was Davis in his opening statement:

…No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified, just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of information that no one ever said was protected.

So this looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem. If the agency doesn’t take sufficient precautions to protect the identity of those who engaged in covert work, no one else can do it for them.

I’m sure they would value your thoughts – where is the evidence that the “outing” was deliberate?

Sure.

Let’s start with the fact that when Libby asked Addington whether the President could insta-declassify something (keeping in mind that his explanations that the “something” was the NIE makes no sense), he hushed the already-quiet Addington during the discussion. He uncontestably knew that Valerie worked at the CIA at this point, of course, because his notes show that the “spouse” whose trip he was researching was Wilson.

And Ari’s testimony makes it pretty clear WHAT aspect of this discussion needed to be hushed. After all, Libby told Ari that Valerie Plame worked in counter-proliferation (the same info that remain unexplained in Novak’s article, which make Libby’s July 9 conversation the most likely source for those details), he also told Ari this was hush hush.

When Eric Edelman asked to leak stuff (just a few days before Libby DID leak Plame’s ID to Judy Miller the first time), Libby refused to have the conversation on a non-secure line.

Now I suspect you’ll argue that this doesn’t mean she was covert (well–perhaps she wasn’t after Cheney had insta-declassified her identity). But care to explain why the consistent secrecy around these issues?

But there were three, in particular, that stick out in my mind: the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe, the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame,” and the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger. The public record doesn’t support any of those assertions–yet Toensing offered those as “facts” “she knew.” It doesn’t reflect well, on Toensing, that in the same appearance where she spouted a number of “facts” “she knew” about the IIPA, she also contradicted the public record on a number of issues she claims “to know.”

Kidding? As a general question, I would be delighted to get your thinking on the likelihood of a perjury charge – how often does Congress invite in an expert witness for their opinion and then hit them for perjury when they offer it? Once a week, once a year, uhh, never? Just curious as to how you think that will develop.

As to the three points you noted, I agree – waiting for the transcript is a great idea. But here we go:

1. “the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe”

Lock her up! Obviously, one memo can’t “prove” anything – how dare she suggest it. Even supported by Grenier’s testimony and point 7 of the Libby indictment, it is not “proof” – outrageous.

[FWIW, here is point 7:

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

]

2. “the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame”

Huh? Do you want to argue that Grenier’s memory, which only came back to him in 2005, is false, and hence her recitation of it is false? You and Libby, together at last.

Or is it your theme that Grenier mentioned “Valerie Wilson”, or “Joe Wilson’s wife”, not “Valerie Plame”? Oh, boy, that sort of mistake is monumental. Not.

However, I would welcome a perjury charge on that point – after we all fall down laughing, the survivors can re-examine Ari Fleischer’s testimony – his claim that Libby used that name was actually relevant.

3. “the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger”

Nick Kristof, June 13 2003, second sentence, source later revealed to be Joe Wilson:

That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Or we could cite Grossman’s trial testimony, IIRC – that was not a public comment by Joe, but maybe he said the same thing to one of Ms. Toensing’s contacts.

Or, lock her up! Do we all agree Gitmo is too good for her? This sort of dissent can not be tolerated.

Exactly the direction my thoughts have taken, though I need to read deeper into how this reflects the PNAC mission.

I also wonder about the networks that actually provide the materials and equipment to make and deploy WMDs … what companies are they hidden in … the “H” one? The “B” family of arms dealers? Somebody was getting blocked by Plame’s work, the money was not flowing, there will be no WMDs to find in countries that begin with I if the goods can’t get through …

The thing that jumped out at me in the article was that Plame and Brewster Jennings had been conducting counter-intelligence operations into this matter for years.

So now I’m wondering if outing Valerie was a two-birds-with-one-stone sort of action. On one hand, it served to try and discredit Joe Wilson. On the other, it exposed Brewster Jennings as a cover company, thus blowing the network investigating the American Turkish Council and its involvement in heroin trafficking and illegal weapons trafficking (including nuclear technology and hardware.) A lot of very well known neocons are involved with ATC. – pachelbelle @ 224

Whoo-hah! Hadn’t known about the ATC! Yeeow!

Also thanks to PhoenixWoman @234, who links us to Mercury Rising, with more links to Jane Hamsher’s and Larisa Alexandrovna’s articles from the past couple years on the same topic.

Because really, even [Ms. Toensing] doesn’t have a good response to the deliberate outing of a CIA officer.

“Outing” implies awareness that she had classified status – can you review the trial evidence suggesting that Libby, Rove, Armitage, or Fleischer had such awareness?

Was it the testimony of Bob Grenier, Craig Schmall, or who?

It was pretty clear at the hearing yesterday that none of the Democrats on the panel could actually rebut Rep. Davis when he made that point, so your assistance on this would also help them in their next go-around as well.

Here, for example, was Davis in his opening statement:

…No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified, just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of information that no one ever said was protected.

So this looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem. If the agency doesn’t take sufficient precautions to protect the identity of those who engaged in covert work, no one else can do it for them.

I’m sure they would value your thoughts – where is the evidence that the “outing” was deliberate?